Clarification of rights...

DeV

While I'm on a rant, here, for those of you who like to spout off about "rights" are some interesting points regarding the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS to which Ireland has signed up for complete compliance (that means you! ).

These are "inalienable rights" meaning you cannot willing forgo them or sign them away in contract...

(the basic right)
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Devs Note: Play Nice.


Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Devs Notes: The interesting thing here is the "nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation".... give that some thought...


(the one everyone likes to quote)
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Devs Note: Fair enough... keep reading...


(ok here's the kicker everyone has missed or choses to ignore when they feel "oppressed")

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


Dev's Note: This means noone has the right to use Article 19 to breach *someone elses* Article 12. Read that again.
Therefore, PeeWee's *right* to freedom of speech doesnt NOT give him the right to abuse Toulouse for example. In fact he's explicitly breaching article 30.

Interesting isnt it?
Quote that next time the muppets feel like wah-ing about their freedom of speech...

Do You Want To Learn More?
<url>http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm</url&gt;

DeV.

WhiteWashMan

erm tom
you are scaring me.....

i hope this is a reaction to something that i know nothing of and not just an 'off the cuff' post that you have made a project out of?

anyway, as far as i can see, any of peewees posts that have been abusive have been removed and any that were not abusive have remaind.
not that i care, i just spout sh1te all day theough sheer bordom

WhiteWashMan

ahhh, have read other post now.
not scared anymore, just worried.

tom, stop getting worked up over it.
let the children run the play pen

Hobbes

One of the points about the right to free speech. While everyone is allowed it, these rights do not apply to the medium.

So while you may feel that Quake is better then Quake2 want to express it, IGN are allowed censor such posts if they so wish and it wouldn't effect your rights.

Vorosha

So what happens if such things happen... such as 'attacks upon his honour and reputation'. What will the LAW do if I call you a 'pig ****er' and say that your mother 'can't talk since I jived her jivet'. Or such things. Just out of interest.

amp

Well the laws of the board I guess as administered by the Q's.

And for all those anarchy lovers out there:
If true anarchy was achieved who'd brew the beer?

---

[Insert cool quote here]
Play GLminesweeper!
http://www.iol.ie/~adamj/dl/mineswp.jpg

DeV

Hobbes, you get a gold star...
Vor Writes:
>So what happens if such things happen...
>such as 'attacks upon his honour and
>reputation'. What will the LAW do if I call
>you a 'pig ****er'

I can take you to court for libel (proving in the meantime that it WAS you). Saying you "lent" your password to a mate is no defense in court afaik btw . This whole area of law is open to interpretation.

But dont take my opinion for it.

From the UN Declaration preamble...
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

That means all the countries that sign up for the declaration have to alter their laws to enshrine these declarations. Thats why you can appeal to the UN Court of human rights, basically you are appealing that your country has misinterpreted your rights in their native laws.

WWMan writes:
>Tom, stop getting worked up over it.
>let the children run the play pen

Um you are right, err... YEAH UT SUCKS, um... I WAS KICKED FOR SPAMMING "****" thats better, yeah that will teach me to post thoughtful threads

Why do people always mistake seriousness for "getting worked up"...

DeV.

WhiteWashMan

ahh, you know what i meant you muppet

tHE vAGGABOND

Dont mean to be rude WW but you dont seem your happy go lucky self on the baords these days....

DEATH

wan dev
dunno why though there was too much to read

Vorosha

Yeah, so what do I get? Whats the fine for 'pig ****er'? Does this mean that if you catch someone calling you names on camera, i.e. some drunkered outside some club, you can take them to court? Imprisonment? Fine? Like what the ****? It all sounds ridiculous to me. Doubt it all works in practice.

amp

I can see it now: Peewee in Geneva saying to the judges "BUT IT'S MY INALIENABLE RIGHT TO SLAG IN CYBURSPACE!!!"

Vorosha - I don't think your seeing what Devs saying in the context. Boards are made up totally of words and therefore they form the reality here and thus slaggin and shouting pig ****er might be interpreted as being much more serious than outside a pub say.

Which begs the question: Does the Un Charter apply to cyberspace?

P.s if anyone understands what I just said please e-mail me as I don't.

---

[Insert cool quote here]
Play GLminesweeper!
http://www.iol.ie/~adamj/dl/mineswp.jpg



[This message has been edited by amp (edited 08-12-1999).]

Vorosha

Amp - I don't think your seeing what I'm saying in the context(?). I'm genuinely interested. I hope everyone understands this.

Hecate

^ ^ ^ ^ constitutional minefield

LoLth

hmmm, I saw an episode of LA Law or one of those where the lawyer (star) of the show was up for slander (the veral form of libel for those not 'in the know' ). Anyway, he had to prove that the man actually WAS what he had called him. The best explanation was the one for 'pus filled sack of disease'

Anyway, the point is, it is the slanderer's responsibility to prove his statement, and not the victim's role to defend themselves. As to 'pig ****er' , you'd have to be able to prove it (without setting yourself up for invasion of privacy charges).

my .02 euros (how do you get that Euro symbol on the keyboard??)

DeV

This is not a constitutional minefield. Its clearly covered by the libel laws as set down.

Basically if what you said can be proved to be

1. Damaging to the victim in the eyes of rightminded people.

2. In the public domain

3. Wrong

Then you are in trouble.

How big that trouble is will be decided by a judge. It varys on the damage done, how public the statement was and the credibility of the person commiting the libel/slander.

ie, a drunk in the gutter calling you a pig-whatever will not be damaging in the eyes of right minded people. However, the president of M$ calling DELL a bunch of ****ups on national TV would get the courts attention.

in between those extremes, it really depends on how ****ed off the person gets. But say for example you DO manage to **** someone off sufficently, they CAN take you to court and have you convicted (presuming you are guilty). The one saving grace is that the internet might (*might*) save your ass by claiming that you didnt do it.

I wouldnt count on it tho and perjury carrys an automatic jail sentence (usually 2 years, ouch).

For Slander/Libel you usually have to make restitution in monetary terms and it can be highly expensive particularly with legal fees (which would almost certainly be awarded against you).
Millions are not unheard of if the damage is considered sufficient.

Tom.



[This message has been edited by DeV (edited 08-12-1999).]

ChRoMe

posted 07-12-1999 02:01 PM by Whitewashman

"i thought you 'retired'?
bugger off"

WhiteWashMan

i didnt realise that was offensive

still, luckily i have plenty of time and irc logs if you want them....

of course, since i only posted a number of days ago that i was fed up of putting smileys beside my humourous remarks i could also say that it was meant to be funny.

on the other hand im not really bothered as i dont really care.
so you can sue me if you want

i am not a criminal......

Shinji

"I thought you retired" - perfectly valid thing to think, that. Its a statement you made, and anyway, the defendant makes it clear that this was his own personal thought/opinion, to which he is entitled.

"Bugger off" - The defendant was here suggesting that you leave here and commit an act of sodomy. At no point did he suggest that you had in the past committed acts of sodomy, whether that be true or not. Nor did he suggest that you enjoy such acts of sodomy, again, whether it is true or not, he merely stated that he would like you to leave and commit an act of sodomy. This then, your honour, cannot be construed to be libellous or defamatory of character in any way, shape or form.

Court Dismissed...

DeV

Shinji is correct.

Being offensive is not libel. However it is breach of the contract you signed up for when you registered for the boards (if you debate that it IS offensive, you'd have to take that up with the judge )

You might think that this is all a little over kill (and it is) however it IS the law as it stands and its unlikely to change.
Its all fun and games until someone calls in the bewigged ones...

Anyway, this thread was for informational purposes only. There is no hidden reason why I posted this except to give you all a moment of pause. You know the way I often say "You own your own words"... well the law isnt going to say... aw it was a stupid bulletin board, who cares...

DeV.

El_Presidente

buh?

Sorry I must be in the wrong place...

bubbles

This is a quake message board.

Please post this under the relevant board.

Thank you


bubbles - Television board moduator.

DeV

God knows its as relevant as other topics posted here..

I didnt start it anyway and you have to admit, most people completely misinterpret their rights and scream blue murder that they arent allowed to shout N|GGER N|GGER on a discussion board.

On that point alone its relevant to this board

Besides, I wanted a decent discussion rather then "waaah I was SOOOOOOOOOOO drunk last night " but then I guess I dont have a sense of humour (right peewee?)

DeV.

SheroN

**** you all and ye're families for the last 13 generations......

DeV

Amp says:
>Which begs the question: Does the Un >Charter apply to cyberspace?

There is no Cyberspace.

There is publication of written word, albeit much quicker then we are used to. The speed (which to *us* is a huge change in the way we communicate) means nothing to the interpretation of the law.

Writing something here is exactly the same as publishing it in a magazine.

DeV.

DeV

Very good Sheron... look I have a coloured ball.. would you like to play with it or is it nap-time now?

DeV.

DEATH

here man out away dem law bukes

weh weh weh

El_Presidente

Your getting old Dev, looking for a decent discussion, would you like a cup of tea and some slippers as well?

amp

Yeah but publishing laws are different in other countries, Dev, and I presume libel laws and other stuff like that.

The internet/cyburspace/whatever isn't neccessarily governed by local laws let alone UN charters. Fair enough, most governments are passing or adapting laws for the internet but it's still fairly self governing.

---

[Insert cool quote here]
Play GLminesweeper!
http://www.iol.ie/~adamj/dl/mineswp.jpg

Hobbes

*cough*

Actually you are bound by your local laws. So if you post something to a server in a country where it's legal, but it's not legal in Ireland then your busted. Likewise for viewing. Just because some backward country allows kiddie pron doesn't mean it's legal for you to view it.

This was proven in a case in England where some muppet claimed he couldn't be proscuted for have a illegal pron site (nasty stuff) because his web server was in a different country.

Trojan

Hobbes, I think that case is not entirely relevant. The point was that he ftp'd the pron up from UK therefore broke the law. If he had it uploaded it from elsewhere then he might have got away with it.

Dev, interesting topic indeed.

Al.